Social Media, in the past two years, has evolved into something more than an information utility. It forms public opinion and even initiates police probes. X (formerly known as Twitter), Instagram, and Facebook are online courts now where justice is being sought out in real-time. From going viral via trending topics to indignation via viral reports, social media is transforming the work of police and the judiciary. The revolution holds promise as well as danger.
The dawn of “Hashtag Justice”
It starts as a tweet—a video capture of a crime being perpetrated, a plea for help, or a provocative photo. #JusticeForVictim or #ArrestTheAccused becomes a Twitter trend in a matter of hours. Thousands of people retweet in solidarity, calling on the police to act. This online campaigning has come to be called “hashtag justice”. Legal action takes time, but the social networking site brings the whole country’s spotlight on a case that would otherwise have gone unnoticed. Social media has served the essential function of keeping the issue in the limelight in cases of police brutality, crime against women, or crime against men.
The Police in Public Sight
The police are never quite as stretched thin. The minute a case goes viral on social media websites, the whole country watches it. Police act prematurely way too often, so that they don’t attract criticism. FIRs are filed at lightning speed, the accused are arrested in hours, and the proceedings are continued to establish that something is being done. Laudable as this may be, it is often at the cost of an investigation. The police officers, too, have rushed into action, driven by online pressure and not perfect evidence. This results in false arrest or insufficient detail, and the case is then lost in court.
Courts and Burden of Public Opinion
Even if theoretically autonomous and impartial, courts are indirectly affected by the fluctuations of popular sentiments online. Judges themselves come under Herculean pressures of public opinion, particularly in salacious cases. Courts, therefore, welcome speeded-up trials, bail adjournment, or decisions on the capriciousness of public mood.
Even if speedy justice is fair, the issue is whether judgments are handed out on sheer law merits or in the name of public indignation. For example, Nirbhaya’s case was rushed through in the wake of national indignation and media outcry, and new legislation was enacted, but the precedent was set for court-rushed populist courts.
The Problem in Trial by Media
One of the undesirable consequences of the use of social media within the court system is what all of us talk about as “trial by media”. People on the web form opinions about the guilt or innocence of a person before courts even have a chance to hear the case based on suspect or untrue information.
A viral momentary video, out-of-context quote, or baldly made-up news story can ruin lives in an instant. Some people have been cyber-bullied, harassed, and even arrested and then let go. This is a devaluing of the rule of law principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and a disrespect to the justice system.
Social Media as an Investigative Tool
Aside from its flaws, social media is also an undisputed asset to the police.
Periodical police sweeps for evidence, following suspects’ leads, and tips from consumers. Cumulative intelligence from eye-witness videos, geospatial location, or social media posts regarding a suspect proves useful to conduct research. Social media is being used more and more in the identification of individuals very rapidly in cases of missing persons or public security threats. It is increasing privacy issues, specifically when eavesdropping is being done in the absence of being in the shadow of the law. As the net keeps playing an enlarging role within the judiciary, one also has to pay attention to his or her position.
Sowing unsubstantiated rumors, victimhood, or unsubstantiated allegations is unfair to serious inquiries. And though police and the judiciary cannot do likewise out of fear of physical harm on the net. Balance has to be struck between hearing what the multitude has to say and being neutral, between the quickness of the net and the majesty of the law.
Conclusion: Justice Must Be Based Upon Law, Not Popularity
Social media has provided people with a voice. Social media has cried out for justice where there used to be silence. But it is not the courtroom. Hashtags can create controversy, but inquiry and punishment need to be grounded in fact and law, not who is trending on social media. If we want justice, then let us see justice served not only swiftly, but justly.
